The Jam better than the Beatles

[The Last Word]

Sorry, but this must be said: when it comes to being overrated, The Stone Roses rewrote the book. Twee, Birds-y, jangly, piss-poor slop for the 'useless generation'. Ex-NME stalwart David Quantick once called them The New Seekers of baggy, and he was spot-on. Fool's gold indeed.

--
"Let's do it..."

[mex]

Using a writer from the NME to support your opinion shows remarkable ignorance. The NME is the school-dweeb of the music press.

Having said that, and just to re-prove how daft you sound, the NME itself recently voted the Roses' first LP "The Number 1 LP of All Time", beating also-rans like The Beatles, Stones, Floyd and so on. Previous years, have seen the LP come placed in the same chart at numbers 6, 5 and 3. NME indeed.

the only 'fool' around here is you fella.

[The Last Word]

Your first two paragraphs contradict each other. And running for the cover of 'best of' lists ill-becomes anyone. It's all just demographs anyway. Have they been on the cover of Mojo yet? Doubtless it awaits if not.

Sorry, fella, the Roses fooled many but they didn't fool me.

--
"Let's do it..."

[Deuce Bigolo]

I still stand by my grunge in general is depressing

I'll grant you there are some Good singers that come from Grunge but the song material that I've bothered to listen to has been dark & depressing IMO with the odd exception.I don't mind dark music(cue Blue Oyster Cult)
but depressing I can do without

My apologies with the Heavy Metal reference...Nu-Metal...Yes...angry/aggressive garbage chock full of loathing....I never get the same feeling when I play the likes of Motorhead-Heavy Raw Power with a definite sense of humor in the lyrics

Sign of the times maybe?

cheers
B....OZ

[Deuce Bigolo]

Quirky is an understatement when mentioning XTC
A style all of their own...always alive and upbeat/offbeat but never dull IMO

I first heard them with the very catchy Generals & Majors & consequently bought the album Black Sea 1980

Used to have English Settlement until an Ex-Friend borrowed it permanently
May he burn in hell or on earth(please God)

I agree with you about The Who...Tommy is brilliant
One of the few soundtracks that didn't seem just like a collection of songs

I've got an English Mate who would be a groupy for the Red Hot Chilli Peppers if he were female.

Trouble is there is so much music and so little time
I'd guess up to know I've bought a 1000 records/cds/tapes in 20 years
A drip in the ocean

What about the legendary Lynyrd Skynyrd?

cheers
B....OZ

[mex]

oh dear. seems you cant follow a sensible and logical argument. I made the 1st two paragraphs contradictory ON PURPOSE to show how remarkably inconsistent and absurd the NME (Your big argument winner) actually are. Come on now, it cant have been that hard to grasp.

oh and:


"And running for the cover of 'best of' lists ill-becomes anyone"

Why exactly?

and bands dont 'run' to be on them, they are elected by the readership. Explain why. This should be good!

and who do YOU think are the best?

this should be even better.

[The Last Word]

Firstly, I did not use NME to back up my point. One single, sharp comment from one ex-writer does not constitute the entire establishment - mere detail to clarify an enjoyable quote. And I couldn't give a flying one what the 'contradictory/inconsistent' NME (your big argument winner, by the way) thinks either way. No-one does.

As for 'best of lists' - what can I say? Sure, they are continually produced, and then continually read, in magazines that continually sell, to people continually willing to shell out money to read them. Continually. Go figure.

'elected by the readership' If you know anything about publishing you should put the biggest question mark possible over this one. And again, why should I, or anyone, give a flying one?

They are there for mere discourse, Mex, nothing more. No-one likes being told what to think (unless you do, of course - for which these lists are very handy). I really shouldn't have to explain more on this - reaction/preference/subjectivity/no right/no wrong/ yadda, yadda, yadda...

Sadly, I have no 'best' for you to tear into as I'm spoilt for choice, and I don't rate one above the other with any of them. I mean, it would be pointless seperating New Order from Joy Division, wouldn't it.

--
"Let's do it..."

[mex]

oh dear again.

I am not told my opinion by anybody. The Roses have been my favourite group since 1989, by a mile. I have a HUGE music collection (you wouldnt have heard of many of them I'd presume) from roots reggae to classical, from northern soul to the Glen Miller Band. I know my music and dont need anyone to tell me whats good.

there is no point in seperating NO and JD?

They were very different in sound mate. Same personnel (near enough) but very different sounds.

As you cant hear it, JD were a rock band. NO were a dance band. JD songs were about illness, paranoia, suicide etc NO songs were about love, ecstasy and growing up.

Granted, they had a very similar 'bass' sound, but wasnt that mainly due to the vastly overrated 'hooky' being a bit limited invention-wise?

and to finally cap your performance, you say that YOU CAN'T SEPERATE great bands, ok fair enough, but then WHY get involved in a debate with those who CAN? fools gold indeed.

[The Last Word]

Okay, let's keep this short.

1. There is no need for upper-case shirtiness. Again, it ill-becomes anyone.

2. Your two presumptions (2nd & 5th para.) I will gladly ignore.

3. I don't (as opposed to can't, as you wrongly state) personally seperate what I consider great bands because, as I mentioned ealier, it's all subjective.

4. Like everybody else, I do, however, like sorting out what I consider the wheat from what I consider the chaff. And this, of course, brings us both back to the Roses.

--
"Let's do it..."

[crofter]

nobody has mentioned the brilliant Simple Minds, or what about REM, two of the greatest groups ever, but even I have to say nobody matched the bealtes.